[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 6 Aug 2015 3:49 pm, "Mueller, Milton L" <
milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I don't recall reading anything that explained the apparent concern that
ICANN would use the IPR assets in a "discriminatory manner," so I am at a
loss to understand the genesis of this reason (and not surprisingly, there
is nothing in the Sidley memo that deals with this mysterious concern).
>
>
>
> First, your assertion is factually untrue. There has been extensive
discussion of the switching costs associated with allowing an incumbent
operator to control the IPR associated with the service.
>
Just to clarify, I presume the cost referred is on whether ICANN will be
willing to allow access to the trademark in a manner currently experienced
if an operational community decides to move it's function to another
operator? If I am write, I think ICANN board confirmed such will be
possible and I think the legal memo also proposed how to ensure such
possibility. Other than that, is there any other specific  cost you refer?
If yes, would that cost have been likely as well if NTIA had decided to
transition IANA to another operator today?

>
>
> Second, you have now admitted that the Sidley memo fails to deal with the
transferability concern. Since this concern is, and has been, the key
consideration behind the call for a transfer of the IPR, its omission
indicates that the memo has little value in these discussions.
>
>
While I am not Greg, I believe the memo suggested ways to ensure ICANN
complies with the IANA trademarks usage/access requirements. There is also
an indication from the memo that the community would have the
accountability mechanism/powers to fix things if need be.

Overall I think the fact that the CWG-Stewardship is not owning up to have
it's view on this issue is of great concern. Initially it was said that the
memo is what will help, we now have the memo and now we are saying it's a
cross-operational community group that will help.
Would it not be better for the CWG-Stewardship to just go neutral on this
matter (like the IETF) and let the CRISP team's view prevail because I
don't understand the essence of a cross-operational community group when
one of the group currently have no specific direction/view on the subject
of discussion.

Hopefully we will recognise that time is ticking and an issue as small as
this could indeed affect the overall transition from proceeding.

Regards
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150806/200a7a0b/attachment.html>